Holy shit
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Holy shit
Holy shit
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
I know right
the movie feels so much more atmospheric compared to new marvel shit
>atmospheric
the frick else am i supposed to say?
>SLOW BURN,BONECHILLING, ATMOSPHERE-OOZING, TROPE-SUBVERTING, GENRE-REDEFINING, GUT-WRENCHING, SPINE-TINGLING, EMOTIONALLY TAXING, PARANOIA-INDUCING, JAW-CLENCHING, NERVE-WRACKING, CHARACTER-DEVELOPMENT DRIVEN, SOUL-SHAKING, NAIL-BITING, ANXIETY-WRITTEN, KAFKAESQUE, POST-LYNCHIAN, TARKOVSKIAN, KUBRICKIAN, TARANTINOESQUE, QUESTION-ASKING, SOCIALLY-AWARE, ETHNICALLY-DIVERSE, POLITICALLY-COGNISANT, CULTURALLY RELEVANT, SOCIALLY-PRESCIENT, THOUGHT-PROVOKING, ARTISANALLY-CRAFTED, PHILOSOPHICALLY SOUND, THEMATICALLY NUANCED, DREAD INDUCING, POST COMEDY, AVANT-GARDE, META-IRONIC, ANTI-HUMOR, POST-NEO-SATIRE
but enough about you
kys
"Soul"
THIS TRILOGY WENT DOWN AS THE BEST IN CINEMA OMG BROS I LOVE SPIDER MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was a good time
Jizz wrist man? Uhh no, no i don't think so
> Jizz wrist man? Uhh no, no i don't think so
body horror in your capeshit makes it tolerable
spiderman 3 was trash
imagine casting the 70's show twink as venom
>no web shooters
web shooters genuinely damage the character as a concept, i dont care that natural web is non-canon, web shooters are fricking moronic
>in a universe where fricking superman exists
>a dude conjuring a sticky and strong material from his body, akin to a spiders web, after getting bit by a spider and gaining spider-like powers, is too much
yeah go frick yourself
>web shooters genuinely damage the character as a concept
Web shooters build up that Peter is a talented scientist, something important to most depictions of the character, including Raimi's. I think you can do without them, but they serve a role.
It’s dumb as frick that spiderman’s only natural spider ability is growing little hairs on his body to stick to walls
There's no way you think that's his only power.
No what's stupid is how those tiny hairs go through shoes.
At least in the movie I don't think he ever does the dumb comic thing where he stands on building walls; he's always touching walls with his hands from what I remember. Maybe he does it with the symbiote suit but that makes sense because the symbiote suit covers the outside of his whole body and can do that kind of shit.
Fair enough. But forget the shoes, those little tiny hairs go through gloves?
And can he just turn off stickyness whenever he can? I seem to recall a scene where he gets the cafeteria fork or whatever stuck to his hand. Wouldn't that make holding hands or even giving a high five a major problem?
Maybe the gloves are thinner at the fingertips than they seem? Being able to retract them at will makes some amount of sense, too.
>in a universe where superman exists
uhhh sorry sweaty i forget when zack snyder directed spiderman, gonna need a source on that one bug fella *pushes up glasses* *smirks* *tips fedora* *moonwalks 360 degrees away*
https://thedirect.com/article/marvel-mcu-superman-canon-exists
>Superman is canon to the MCU
>Raimi's Spider-Man is canon to the MCU
>Superman is canon to Raimi's Spider-Man
QED
Superman is canon in Marvel as a comic book, yes. Not a real person.
Read the article:
>In a recent promo for Marvel's upcoming film Eternals, Ikaris played by Richard Madden is mistakenly identified by Phastos' son Jack as a superhero he's seen on TV with similar abilities to Ikaris himself.
>Now that more of this scene has been revealed in the new Eternals featurette, Marvel fans now know that Jack was, in fact, referencing DC's own Superman.
>In a section of the video highlighting Richard Madden's character of Ikaris, Jack now says, "Dad, that's Superman with the cape and he was shooting laser beams out of your eyes."
Superman the actual superhero is canon in the MCU.
When I was in middle school I hated the lack of web shooters because I needed everything to be perfectly faithful to the source material, but as I grew older I grew out of that level of pointless autism and realized that adaptations can and should be more flexible with the source material in order to provide fresh takes and new stories. Organic web shooters are integrated into the movie in a way that makes sense and serves the character and themes. Especially in Spider-Man 2, when Peter has his personality crisis and loses his web-shooting it holds a lot more weight than a writer just arbitrarily deciding his cartridge should run out in this scene to manufacture some tension. Instead it's built into his character arc and tied to things happening in his life and in the story in a very intimate way. Hating on organic web shooters just because it doesn't match the comics is foolish, approach the adaptation on its own terms and judge it as a separate work.
these movies are so fricking good
back before all media needed to have a cynical twist
the power of technology bros
Indeed.
nice
Some of the CGI in the first one looks pretty silly now but holy shit is that movie SOUL. I used to always think the 2nd one was easily better, but the first hits that comic book feel so perfectly. The parade scene is perfect, so much color and the right amount of camp.
The second one is better. Spider-Man 2 is insanely good. But Spider-Man 1&3 are both very good too
>Spider-Man: Hunting for Black folk
>Spider-Man 2: MJ Helps Hunt for Black folk
>Spider-Man 3: Oh Shit!
why didnt spiderman stop 9/11?
The Bush Administration paid him to stay home that day.
I think that would be considered insensitive to depict.
It had best girl.